Routine iron supplementation for non-anaemic pregnant women in developed countries needs evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: Cantor AG, Bougatsos C, Dana T, et al. Routine iron supplementation and screening for iron deficiency anemia in pregnancy: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:566–76[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3]. The role of appropriate nutrition and micronutrient intake in pregnancy is well established and 19.2% of pregnant women globally are estimated to have iron deficiency anaemia (IDA).1 The corresponding estimates for the Americas and Caribbean are 15.2% (11.7–18.6%) and for Europe 16.2% (12.6–19.7%). Anaemia in pregnancy is associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes for the mother and baby. Iron (and folic acid) supplements during pregnancy in women at risk of IDA are an important recommendation by the WHO.2 However, it is unclear if women should receive targeted supplementation (after screening … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAnn%2BIntern%2BMed%26rft.volume%253D162%26rft.spage%253D566%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.7326%252FM14-2932%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F25820661%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M14-2932&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=25820661&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F20%2F6%2F208.atom
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".